A federal appeals court has ruled that works created solely by artificial intelligence cannot receive copyright protection under US law. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the US Copyright Office’s decision to reject computer scientist Stephen Thaler’s attempt to register an artwork created by his AI system called the “Creativity Machine.”
Judge Patricia Millett, who wrote the opinion, stated that US copyright law “requires all work to be authored in the first instance by a human being” and that “many of the Copyright Act’s provisions make sense only if an author is a human being.” The ruling highlighted several examples from copyright law that point to human authorship as a requirement:
- Copyright duration is typically limited to the author’s lifespan
- The statute allows copyrights to be transferred to surviving spouses or children
- The law refers to authors’ domiciles and nationalities
- Authors have intentions, whereas “machines lack minds and do not intend anything”
The case and arguments
Thaler had argued that the Copyright Act doesn’t explicitly define “author” and that nothing in the law requires human creation. His attorney claimed that the Creativity Machine is “sentient” and that denying copyright protection for AI-generated works would “discourage investment and labor in a critically new and important developing field.”
The court rejected these arguments, with Judge Millett writing that “statutory construction requires more than just finding a sympathetic dictionary definition.” The judge added that accepting Thaler’s position would raise “problematic questions” about a machine’s life and death, and would inconsistently define machines as both authors and tools.
In a colorful reference, the ruling mentioned Star Trek character Data’s poetry, suggesting that while current AI technology isn’t comparable to the fictional android’s human-like intelligence, copyright laws could potentially evolve if AI ever reached such capabilities. However, Judge Millett emphasized that any such changes should come from Congress or the Copyright Office, not the courts.
Implications for AI-assisted works
The court clarified that its ruling doesn’t affect artists who use AI as a tool. Unlike Thaler’s claim that his AI generated the work independently, many artists seek copyright protection for works they create with AI assistance, which may still be eligible for protection under current law.
Following the decision, Thaler’s attorney Ryan Abbott stated that they “strongly disagree” with the ruling and plan to appeal. Meanwhile, the Copyright Office expressed satisfaction with the outcome, saying it “believes the court reached the correct result.”
Sources: Ars Technica, Reuters